Imagine, for a moment, if we boycotted all those books written by people with whom we'd not "knowingly" associate, whether or not we have actually read the books or have met the people. What a victory for human knowledge! (Read more...)Discuss this Article(75 messages)

DSeiple

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

I come at this as an outsider, but I couldn't help but be struck with Chris Matthew Sciabarra's masterfully stated account of the recent controversy over the JARS boycott by the orthodox wing of the Randians.

My understanding is that Ayn Rand was not, to say the least, very taken with religiously inspired interpretations of life. If someone's "sense of life" had religious overtones, she took that as a sign that the person's autonomy was impaired.

Now, setting aside whether she was right or wrong on religion as a general matter -- in what way do the orthdox Randians really differ in their conduct from the religious hegemons Rand so deplored? Is the rationality that ensures our survivial as autonomous beings compatible with the refusal to engage in open discussion with others? What would such refusal say about one's autonomy?

I'm wondering if the refusal to discuss isn't a cover for a secret fear -- that one really can't handle the discussion? The way to show that this isn't true is, obviously, to engage in it.

Wendy McElroy

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

I second DSeiple's observations and raise the ante...hmm...are my Saturday poker nights with the girls showing yet?

I begin with levity to counter the dogmatic tone of the humanities.philosophy.objectivism thread that vilifies Chris Sciabarra for bringing to Objectivism what it sadly needs -- new interpretations (even ones which make me uncomfortable, a la Slavoj Zizek), serious discussion from mainstream philosophers (again, like that of Slavoj Zizek), and a perspective on how the greater world perceives the philosophy (as offered by Slavoj Zizek).

Well done, Chris.

I know you will pay a high price in backlash for publishing an unorthodox analysis of Rand's idealization of the "strong male." (And, boy, do I have reservations on that topic!) I read the usenet thread (187 burning posts when I last checked) and I was appalled by Andrew Bernstein's call to boycott your books and The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies without having the honesty to even read the "offending" piece first. I'd hoped that such "purges" were dust of the past.

I rely on you to keep expanding the discussion of Objectivism and Ayn Rand, to continue presenting provocative interpretations, to...well, remain yourself.

Seriously, Chris, I am sorry the entire controversy erupted. Do you think the "true believer" Objectivists realize how many bright, inquiring intellectuals witness these sort of dramas and just walk away from Objectivism, shaking their heads, never giving the "movement" the benefit of their energy and talents? Probably not. Alienating the best and brightest is an invisible cost. It leaves only those who recyle terms like "second hander," not realizing the irony of doing so.

Hang in there, Wendy McElroy

sciabarra

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

As DSeiple suggests, I don't think there is much of a difference in terms of attitude between religionists and the orthodoxy. Peikoff himself has invited a comparison to Catholicism; he himself views the philosophy as a closed system--the words of Ayn Rand and ONLY the words of Ayn Rand--but not even Catholicism is THAT closed.

I suspect that underlying the refusal to dialogue is a secret fear, but I'm not quite sure where that fear comes from. I suppose on one level it is the fear of the "true believer" that Wendy alludes to; such a "true believer" has a fear of contamination---as if the very act of conversation with one's opponent INFECTS you.(Bernstein, by the way, called for a boycott without having read ANY of the "offending" pieces---not my work and not a single article in JARS, except Minsaas's review of his CLIFFSNOTES... but he clearly had no problem publishing in JARS, until, apparently, some of his colleagues urged him to look more closely at the kinds of people who were associated with the journal.)

Yes, I do believe that this "true believer" approach to Objectivism does alienate some bright, inquiring intellectuals, who are apt to dismiss Ayn Rand as the leader of a cult. The amazing thing is that Rand herself was wary of those whom she called "Objectivist ritualists." I wonder if she realized that some of these ritualists were among her closest followers.

Kernon Gibes

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

Intersting how you can start off by talking about a thread on HPO and end with condemnation of ARI representatives.

Simply listing works by representatives of ARI published in non ARI institutions, or informing us of the works not endorsed by the ARI does not enligthen the reader on anything but the simple facts that were listed. One of the facts listed, Leonard Peikoff's article published by a catholic sponsored instituation proves wrong the premise that there is a boycott on publishing in institutions when there is disagreement.

What's not being endorsed by the ARI are institutions or individuals that purport to be authorities on Objectivism or promote the ideas of Ayn Rand and work against these things. This is why there is no problem with Capitalismmagazine.com, where one will find ARI works mixed with people not affiliated and where there are disagreements; or the Ayn Rand Bookstore where numerous nonobjectivist books are sold.

*btw if you want to read something by NB feel free to pick up C:TUI or other works, and I personally can't wait to read Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics.

John Shaw

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

You know, I try to make things as simple as possible. "Good Ideas" are "Good Ideas" Are they not? I am the penultimate arbiter of what is Good or Evil. (Of course, reality trumps me if I fail to integrate something important, but that is not where I am going here.) The point is: A fool can have a Good Idea, and the idea should not be marginalized or dismissed simply because it came from a Person Of Dubious Philosophical Practice ™ (Or whatever the BATTLE RANDROIDS are shouting this week.) For Wendy: I wouldn’t be too worried. Many of the Objectivists (And interested onlookers) who leave the public forum are still around, they just refrain from discussing a topic that they find rather silly. Kernon: Plug away, good friend, and I will continue to “Pimp” (Humor emphasized) my forthcoming article on the media and why Objectivists don’t have a slew of cool movies to watch. (It promises to be more of an epic than I at first thought. Coming soon!!!)

Note: Battle Randroids is a wholly owned product of Shawco Industries, which is a subsidiary of Ma and Pa Shaw’s Tasty BBQ Grilled Capitalism Ltd.

sciabarra

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

To Russ K... you write: "Intersting how you can start off by talking about a thread on HPO and end with condemnation of ARI representatives."

Actually, you'll find no condemnation of any ARI representatives, but you will find criticism of Andrew Bernstein, who happens to be a member of ARI.

In fact, if anything, I'm PRAISING Peikoff, Mayhew, Binswanger, and Ridpath for being ecumenical enough to publish in professional non-partisan journals, for the same reason that the door remains open for them to contribute---anytime they wish---to THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES, which is also a professional non-partisan journal.

JARS is a journal, by the way, that in its short three-year existence, is indexed in whole or in part by The Philosopher's Index, Political Science Abstracts, International Political Science Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, the MLA International Bibliography, and the MLA Directory of Periodicals. I do not state these facts as an "argument from authority"; rather, I state them because these are among the very same abstracting services indexing the journals for which Peikoff, Binswanger, Ridpath, and Mayhew have written. It's not easy to add indexing services to a professional journal. You have to work hard at maintaining standards of scholarly discourse in order to qualify and maintain the service. We have been, and we remain, a professional NON-PARTISAN journal---just like those journals I mentioned in my original article.

You state: "One of the facts listed, Leonard Peikoff's article published by a catholic sponsored instituation proves wrong the premise that there is a boycott on publishing in institutions when there is disagreement."

But THAT wasn't the point of my article; some ARI-affiliated scholars CLEARLY publish in venues where there is disagreement. My point was that those who are defending the boycott of JARS are doing so on the premise not of content, but precisely because they do not wish to be seen in the same publication with other individuals who are "persona non grata"---as if being published in a journal with PEOPLE with whom you'd rather not associate gives "sanction" to those people or their works or the institutions to which they belong. This is NOT a disagreement over content; it is a repudiation of JARS based on the fact that it publishes PEOPLE like, for example, David Kelley or George Walsh or any number of other recognized scholars who have something to say about Objectivism---but who are critical of the Ayn Rand Institute. When you call for a boycott (note: boycott means that you are trying to organize "together in refusing to deal with, buy, etc. so as to punish or coerce") of a journal because you don't want to "knowingly associate" with PEOPLE, you are engaging in partisanship, you are embracing a vestige of tribalism.

Russk writes: "What's not being endorsed by the ARI are institutions or individuals that purport to be authorities on Objectivism or promote the ideas of Ayn Rand and work against these things."

The Journal's purpose is not pro- or con- on Objectivism; it is to bring scholarly attention to Ayn Rand's ideas by subjecting them to the give-and-take of a dialogue among people from different traditions. We are not an organized "institution" promoting "Objectivism," we are not a group of like-minded individuals---not even among the Board of Advisors will one find agreement on central issues of importance in Objectivist philosophy. But one will find among our advisors and contributors, people like Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, who have been at the forefront of Rand scholarship for 30 years, ever since they dared to publish a critique of Robert Nozick's "On the Randian Argument" in THE PERSONALIST. One will find historian Robert Hessen and philosopher John Hospers, both of whom enjoyed long periods of association with Ayn Rand. One will find philosophers Lester Hunt, Tibor Machan, and Eric Mack, economist Larry Sechrest, literary theorists Mimi Gladstein, Stephen Cox and Kristi Minsaas, aestheticians Michelle Kamhi and Louis Torres, and so on and so on and so on.

These people don't "purport to be authorities on Objectivism." They ARE authorities; you may disagree with them on any number of issues---but to say that they are not authorities is to insult the years of work that each of these individuals has devoted to Rand studies.

I have a question, however: Den Uyl, Rasmussen, Hunt, and yes, even Sciabarra all belong to the Ayn Rand Society of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association. It too is a non-partisan organization. And one will find plenty of ARI-affiliated scholars among its speakers and members, including Binswanger, Gotthelf, Schwartz, Bernstein, and others. How is it that these people can belong to THAT organization (though, truth be told, if you attend any of their meetings, it does appear like an Italian wedding---where the in-laws and out-laws are not even looking at each other, let alone talking to each other)?

A friend of mine asked me: Has the Ayn Rand Society received a special dispensation?

I honestly don't know.

But do you not see total inconsistency here? Is it that ARI-affiliated scholars can belong to a loosely organized society that includes people who are "persona non grata," but that they can't contribute to a publication that includes these very same people? If Bernstein is willing to call a boycott because JARS entails "knowingly associating" with people whom he repudiates---and these very same people are members (in some instances FOUNDING members) of ARS, to which he too belongs, why not boycott the Ayn Rand Society?

Hypocrisy is not pretty.

And by the way, as I said on hpo, I'm not a hypocrite. I send an annual check to the Ayn Rand Institute, and I am a subscriber to The Intellectual Activist. But I also contribute money and/or time and energy to The Objectivist Center, SOLO, and to any number of organizations connected to Objectivism. I do this because as a Rand scholar, I could not dream of cutting myself off from organizations that publish work on Rand. I think Rand scholars need to tap into all of this material if they are to come to terms with the complexity of Objectivism.

Finally: yes, CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL still features Branden's essays. So does THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS. Now... go look through the last few years of THE INTELLECTUAL ACTIVIST or old copies of THE OBJECTIVIST FORUM or any number of recent lectures given by ARI-affiliated scholars at their conferences or at the Ayn Rand Society---and if you can find any visible references to Nathaniel Branden's "approved" essays (forget about his post-Rand corpus), I'll give you a quarter. (Truth be told: there is a single reference to a single essay of Branden's in a Darryl Wright lecture given before The Ayn Rand Society. It is in his citations. In the body of his lecture, however, he states something to the effect of "as an essay published in THE OBJECTIVIST says"... as if the mere mention of Branden IN THE LECTURE is a sin.)

Alternatively, go look through NAVIGATOR, THE FREE RADICAL, David Kelley's works, or my works, or the works of Machan, or Rasmussen, or Den Uyl, or Kamhi and Torres---and tell me if you see any lack of citations to ARI-affiliated scholars. Tell me if you see the same PARTISANSHIP there, as is fully visible in ARI publications.

These people may disagree with various aspects of the ARI vision of Objectivism---but they ENGAGE the arguments.

That's one of the demands of scholarly objectivity.

sciabarra

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

As a postscript to yesterday's message, I should say that I received an offlist email that addressed two points, which I'd like to mention here.

A reader said that he ran across two brief discussions of David Kelley's THE EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES while listening to Gary Hull's audio course, "Understanding the Philosophy of Ayn Rand". Hull, apparently, was dismissive of the book as incomprehensible and poorly written, lost in academic minutiae.

My only response to this: How come nobody connected to "official" Objectivism was dismissive of this book when excerpts of it were being published back in 1981 in THE OBJECTIVIST FORUM? (I do know that The Ayn Rand Bookstore criticized ARI-scholar Tara Smith's VIABLE VALUES for its "academic" style, but that hasn't prevented them from carrying the book; the same cannot be said for THE EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES... for the obvious reason that Kelley is now persona non grata.)

The reader also wondered why I'd equate Rand's "Screen Guide for Americans" with a list of de facto prohibited philosophical works. I think the point is well made, and there is a difference that I didn't spell out in the article.

Rand provided a guide to make explicit the implicit political PREMISES at work in certain artistic choices that were being made by American filmmakers. Any de facto Index Librorum Prohibitorum is designed to make explicit the PEOPLE at work in certain scholarship. The former is an objective exercise; the latter is an instance of partisanship.

Hi Chris! There you go again taking it at both ends!:) Why, you must be THE most beat up kid on the block. I think the Vatican will certainly have to canonize you someday. You know the good thing is that the orthodox Objectivists never will, even when they become official as a religion. As a cult all they can do is hunt you down and corner you on any website you appear:) Yeah, RussK that is why the conversation begins with HPO and ends with ARI. I told you once before that the steps between Leonard Peikoff and the Ayatollah are not as countless as the former supposes.

Michal35

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

The ARI had 15 years to establish an Ayn Rand Studies Journal since its inception in 1987. It chose not to, leaving it to Sciabarra to start such a journal. Rather then complain about the content of JARS, they should come up with their own (purportedly better) journal of academic studies of Rand by ARI and non-ARI scholards, just like CapitalismMagazine is doing. At present, they don't even publish a partisan magazne like Navigator.

-- Michelle Fram Cohen

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

Yes, Kelly now is persona non grata. His works are affiliated with an opposing institution. It is only logical that an institution that promotes (X) boycotts an institution that promotes a wrong version of (X). One should see some logic in this whether or not they hold the premise that the IOS is promoting non-objectivism.

About Screen Guide for Americans:

"Rand provided a guide to make explicit the implicit political PREMISES at work in certain artistic choices that were being made by American filmmakers. Any de facto Index Librorum Prohibitorum is designed to make explicit the PEOPLE at work in certain scholarship. The former is an objective exercise; the latter is an instance of partisanship."

Does the "Screen Guide" not make explicit the people (film makers) who were making the "artistic choices" being criticized by Ayn Rand?

"the former is an objective exercise; the latter is an instance of partisanship." Actually I agree, but doing the former would seem to result in the latter.

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

Are you implying that I hunted Chris down? If so I'm sure solohq logs will prove you wrong. "Yeah, RussK that is why the conversation begins with HPO and ends with ARI." Sorry, I can't find any meaning in that statement.

Yes I've heard your Peikoff rant before but until some promoting arguments are made I'll dismiss such rants as arbitrary.

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

Thank you for responding to me. I am not worried about you at all. No, I don't think that you are hunting Chris down. You have contributed to SOLOHQ discussions before and that seems to be evidence that you at least care enough to seek out alternative voices in Objectivism. You generally ask questions that have made me reflect deeply about issues where I may be wrong. There are others that show up to announce that Sciabarra is an enemy of Rand and I am not just thinking about forums but in other places as well. I often buy books from amazon.com and sometimes I read the reviews that people write(I have read reviews "What Art Is" Khamy Torres, all of Sciabarra's books including "Total Freedom", Kelley's books, and others as well). I have seen people make blanket statements against Sciabarra in these reviews and they usually follow a certain format. Sometimes they are from anonymous sources. There are those that are consistently negative and condemning. It doesn't take much effort to understand that these types of reviews, comments, messages have a common origin especially when they mention Peikoff, or observe the official dogma he promotes. Notice that there are not many official statements published against independent scholars, but that the condemning posture shows up in online reviews, forums, or official "boycotts". I believe they are the result, not of critical thinking, but of rigid orthodox beliefs delivered in a rhetorical manner. They appeal to 1)credibility, or ethos ("Believe me I am right in what I say, you should not buy Sciabarra's book, he hates Ayn Rand") 2) fear and nostalgia ("Sciabarra is destroying the minds of would-be Objectivists" or "Sciabarra is a dangerous man with a philosophical disease, etc") 3) appeals to reason, or logos, which is very rarely found but sometimes shows up in anti-Sciabarra reviews ("here are my reasons, Sciabarra consistently promotes a certain thesis that is contrary to the principles of Ayn Rand's thought" or "Sciabarra is a homosexual and you can see the impact of this in his hatred for Rand It comes from his sexual frustration") I made up a few of my own examples but they are not very different from those I have actually read.

When I read people attacking Sciabarra I can generally calculate what kind of attack it is going to be, and it usually follows one of these patterns I have described. There is another way, however, to argue with Sciabarra. That example is found in the scholarly form that he practices. Intellectuals like Bisell, Roderick Long, the late Merrill, David Kelley, Rasmussen, DenUyl and many others recognize this alternative scholarly approach. Sciabarra can tell you more about his own experiences than I can.

What does this have to do with ARI? Perhaps I am revealing here my own attachment to David Kelley, the Branden's, Sciabarra, Khamy and Torres, and many many more. All of these people have had extreme difficulty dealing with Leonard Peikoff. All of these people are significant contributors to the legacy of Ayn Rand and they differ from one another in various ways. They have all experienced, remarked, and sometimes written about a similar pattern of behavior they experience when they come into contact with Peikoff and those who follow closely in his circle. This pattern is fairly consistent and it usually involves a flat condemnation of anything they present (witness the attacks on JARS, to name but one).

In the absence of any other reason for arriving at the conclusion that these are arbitrary, I can only assume that they are coming from the top down. I don't believe for own minute that David Kelley's "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand" is a work of fiction. I cannot see any reason why Sciabarra would write articles about this same topic out of irrational fear or paranoia. I don't believe in this kind of hierarchical structure, the kind that I see in the ARI. If you think that there is anything arbitrary about my conclusion that it trickles down from Peikoff, then please provide me with evidence to the contrary.

Another thing I wish to make clear. I do not believe that any of the writers I have mentioned here proceed in this manner that I observe from peikoff or ARI. Each of these writers has consistently shown a benevolent interest in one another, and though they may disagree, they usually observe tolerance and professionalism in their dealings. I'll show you an example from Kelley and Barbara Branden. In a review of the late Ronald Merrill's "The Ideas of Ayn Rand", Branden wrote: "One need not agree with all of his conclusions to congratulate Mr. Merrill on the independence of his thinking." Kelley writes: "I don't agree with everything he says but his discussion is full of insights and penetrating points, and I learned a great deal from reading it." Both of these observations state the same thing in a way that is benevolent while pointing out reservations. They accomplish this WITHOUT condemnation, reprehension, warning, or any rhetorical appeal.

I do not see Peikoff ever offering any kind of benevolent statements about independent scholars who consider themselves Objectivists or inspired by Ayn Rand. The opposite occurs. There is either a dead silence or an embarassing public condemnation that only hurts these people (although I am sure they are all pretty much indifferent to it by now). If you know of one please share it with me because I do want to be wrong about this issue. So far, I am much in agreement with Kernon's observations. His article here at SOLOHQ on pagans and heretics. He points out a very similar pattern in the history of orthodoxy, and I don't think that he is the only one to observe it. Others have noticed a hierophant/sycophant pattern in Objectivism as well. Is this a rant of mine? Perhaps it is, and others have rants of their own. I do recognize your autonomy and I do not wish you to think that I am implying that you come from the ARI. You don't have the burden of proof here Russ, and I would not ask you to prove a negative:) I base my comments on what I have observed, that is all. I don't consider this "arbitrary" at all.

MichelleCohen

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

What you are saying is that any scholar who is not affiliated with ARI is against Rand and Objectivism. What about the great many non-Objectivist scholars published on CapitalismMagazine? They are not against Rand and Objectivism. ARI has a large pool to choose from without publishing their opponents.

-- Michelle

Per Hansen

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

As far as I can see, ARI boycotts people and organisations that use a definition of Objectivism that differs from Rand´s.

One example, sort of. Sciabarra, in one of his books (I have forgotten which) describes Objectivist Richard Salsman as a randian (or rand-influenced), but describes Murray Franck as an Objectivist, even if he (Franck) supports forced taxation. This is based upon a definition of Objectivism that differs from Rand´s.

In the newsletter for the Ayn Rand Archives (available at the ARI-website), Michael Berliner says explicitly that people who claim to be Objectivists, but who use a definition of Objectivism that is different from Rand´s, will not be allowed to use the material in the archives. I support this; I regard any person who knows Objectivis well, but who uses a definition of Objectivism that differs from Rands, to be dishonest.

RegardsPer Hansen Oslo Norway

Francois Tremblay

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

I am trying to be reasonable about this, but I have real problems with such Randian rhetoric.

I have two questions, really :

1. What are Randians doing on SOLO HQ ? SOLO is quit explicitly meant as an open organisation, not a closed one. What profit is there for you to be talking to the enemy ?

2. Since when is an ideology's adherence standards left to the originator ? Someone is "of" a certain ideology if he agrees with the core principles of that ideology. This is true in all cases, except, it seems, Objectivism ! The ideology which you would think as the LEAST doctrinary there is ! (except when Randians are concerned)Why is Rand elevated to such a high status that she has the right to dictate who is and who is not an Objectivist ?

I will *not* accept that Randians come here and tell us that *their* definition of who we are is better than *ours*, simply because it is more "pure" ! I'm sorry, but I just won't. It is unacceptable intellectual dishonesty.

Per Hansen

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

There are definite problems with the ARI's stance on "Objectivism as a closed system". The way I see it, you have two choices: definition by essentials or definition by nonessentials. For the first, you could use Rand's famous one-foot description; but if you want to say that Objectivism is simply what Ayn Rand said it was, do you take her short answer (definition by essentials) or do you take her long answer (everything that she ever wrote or said)? When she said that a woman shouldn't be president, did she preface this by saying, "By the way, this isn't officially Objectivism"? When she compared lettuce and the like to grass, was she hinting that a vegetarian can't be an Objectivist? (Well, she WAS right on that one!)

Every concept should have a definition. And a proper definition requires a genus and a differentia, not an entire body of work.

I think that we should view most of the details of her work as explanations, advancements, and implications of the basics of Objectivism, not a gigantic laundry list.

Per Hansen

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

Ayn Rand wrote: "Objectivism is the name I have given to my philosophy..." (I guess everyone here knows the rest of that quote.) Thus, Objectivism is the name of the philosophy published in the material Ayn Rand wrote or endorsed.

Those who disagree with this, agrees with the people who asked "Why should Rearden be the only one who is allowed to produce Rearden Metal?"

As for the woman president issue - this is not a philosophical issue, it is psychological, and is therefore not a part of Objectivism.

And Objectivism is a proper name. (It is written with a capital O.) So, Objectivism is not a concept.